End of Double Jeopardy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Apr 4, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/04/njeop04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/04/ixhome.html

    This law was introduced to stop the State harassing people through the courts by constantly putting them on trial for the same offence until they got the verdict they wanted, and also to stop the State bringing people to trial on flimsy evidence.

    Well done, Tony - you have completely changed the relationship between the people and the State. I hope that at your War Crimes trial they keep finding "new evidence" after an acquittal & keep dragging you through the courts until they get the result they want...

    I predict the first abuse of this within 6 months.

    And I predict straight deleting of cut and pastes if my concerns regarding copyright infringement are not listened to.

  2. On the other hand, if you are genuinley not guilty you have nothing to worry about.

    There will have been far more miscarraiges of justice the other way around, where folk have walked for murder, rape, peadophillia etc

    I reckon there will be a few sweating crims out there.

    Hows about we start in Armagh?
  3. I'm not sure it's as simple as that, MDN - there have been some murder convictions on some very shakey circumstantial evidence lately (Barry George (the guy who's in for Jill Dando's murder), for instance). There's scope for abuse here - if they really want you for something, whether you did it or not, they can keep introducing circumsantial evidence & hearsay (which, IIRC, is now permissable as evicence - another Neue Arbeit thing) until they find a jury that will convict you.
  4. The have also been a number or people ie Drug dealers, murderers, terrorists, walk on similar technicalities......

    Whilst I hate Blair and would see him impaled on a spike in an instance I do think this is a right move.......... odd its happened just before an election too :D
  5. If you are convicted unfairly, then yoiu can appeal and carry on appealing at various levels. Why shouldn't it also work the same way for the prosecution if new evidence comes to light. Think of the crimes where people have been aquitted but new evidence such as DNA sampling could be used.
  6. Haven't they written themselves a new set of rules that does away with a jury if they see fit too?

    Can't help wondering if this is also a safeguard against he number of cases that get thrown out over a technicality.

    I think that this one's sufficiently contentious for it to be next to impossible to abuse without a clud of bad PR forming...and we all know how that's now the only way to get NA to reform its ways. :roll:
  7. Crims are walking because it's now the evidence against them and the way it was gathered that is on trial. The minor question of whether they actually DID it is secondary to the legal technicalities and whether the police followed the rules.

    The inevitable mess that this has produced provides the excuse for the removal of the liberties that our ancesters fought to win and defend. We - sorry, you - have lost or are in the process of losing not only double jeopardy, but jury trial, habbeous corpus and the presumption of innocence.

    On top of this, the police (who were citizens in uniform, specifically excluded from having an officer corps, sworn to defend the public, AND LOCALLY ACCOUNTABLE) are increasingly led -wrong, managed - by senior officers whose accountability and career progression lies with the Home Office. From nearly 180 forces in England and Wales you now have less than 50. Watch out for a National Police Force coming to a country near you.

    Rant over. Not a conspiracy theorist - the saddest thing is that it has all happened through accident and politics.
  8. Perhaps we should adopt a "three choice" system for Juries?
    Guilty, not proven (i.e. case fails on legal technicality or dodgy evidence, can be retried) or not guilty (obviously innocent prosecution is taking the piss, cannot be retried) and juries should be told if someone has been tried before for the same crime and "not proven"with reasons (if any i.e. legal) given.
  9. There is something sinister about the Neue Arbeit fixation with the mechanics of the executive/judiciary and their indifference to the environment and forces acting within it. Tough on deckchairs, tough on the reshuffling of deckchairs on the Titanic!! Sinking not floating...

    The sheer volume of scrotes and NEETs who walk away from court with a pound out of the poor-box makes decent god-fearing people like me and Mrs Cuddles shudder. Equally the number of people who have been convicted on expert evidence (cos Nanny knows best dears) regardless of the facts is also horrfying. Look Bliar, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If he had spent as much time on our rights as he did on Monsieur Reynard's, then we would not be having this debate.
  11. In the case of the Met, specifically recruited by Peel from the former NCOs of the 43rd & 52nd who were well regarded by him in their ability to deal calmly and fairly with licentious soldiery (...and thus the general public :lol: ) learned under Sir John Moore.

    Bet he's spinning. :roll:
  12. Double Jeopardy has always struck me as an anachronism. All court judgements are, at the end of the day, the result of the combined subjective thinking by several people. We are all influenced by presentation and argument and these things often outweigh commonsense as OJ Simpson will happily testify.

    In other words there are very few cases where the evidence is so overwhelming that the outcome is 100% safe (one reason we don't have capital punishment) and verdicts are delivered as a best guess by 12 men and women. To make things worse, our system is geared to give the benefit of the doubt when there is uncertainty. In a rape case, for example, when it is 'his word against hers', the suspect will walk free most of the time where there is any uncertainty because the system has decided that it's better to let a guilty man go free than it is to risk jailing an innocent man.

    In this environment a hell of a lot of guilty people probably walk free and to my mind, as the system is already leaning towards giving the suspect the benefit of the doubt, I see no problem with a fresh trial if new evidence comes to light. The system will still provide the defendants with all our historic safeguards, but it seems ridiculous that DNA or whatever can come to light that proves guilt, evidence that wasn't available at the original trial, and that the killer can walk the streets immune from prosecution.
  13. No you can't. You can appeal against conviction and against sentence if you have grounds to do so; but if those fail you need to come up with compelling new evidence, not just keep repeating 'I didn't do it' until you find someone to believe you.
  14. I know that, but if you fail at each point you can ask to appeal to the next level (and whinge like b*ggery if you don't get it). I just think it's a good idea to give the prosecution the same tool rather thatn hampering them to just one try that then turns out to be vindicated when new forms of evidence come to light (DNA sequencing and EDSA testing being the two relatively recent advances).
  15. Abolition of the rule against double jeopardy.

    Abolition of habeas corpus.

    Abolition of trial by jury as a matter of right.

    Detention, without bond, and without trial, on suspicion.

    Abolition of the right to keep and bear arms.

    Abolition of personal privacy.

    Abolition of freedom of speech.

    Centralized control over the constabulary.

    Anyone see a pattern here?